Primary Navigation

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Longstreet

Given the military resources of the Northern forces compared to that of the southern military, the strategy of Strategic Defense would lead to a slow steady

Message 1 of 18
, Jun 1, 2010

0 Attachment

Given the military resources of the Northern forces compared to that of the southern military, the strategy of "Strategic Defense" would lead to a slow steady stranglation of the south. It would be like waiting for the other shoe to drop.

>
> Ron

Hello.
The overwhelming superiority in resources and manpower certainly insured that, if marshalled, a Union victory. (Overwhelming may be an understatement-while fighting the costliest war in our history, the transcontinental raillroad was building on schedule (In the South, according to the Army War College-Levenworth Campus they were not even making rails-let alone laying new track).
What gaurnteed victory though was not men or material superiority-it was the will to wield them and force the issue through to the end-the will perseevere at any cost.
It was Lincoln that won the war. He had the resources and he was of a mind to wield them.
Absent Lincoln, you don' have victory.
You have the negotiated peace that I think most in the CSA thought they were going to get when the whole thing started.
In my opinion anyway

Regards,
Jack
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

carlw4514

Hey Hank I agree, note that where Longstreet looked not so good was at Knoxville where he was asked to do something against this line of thinking. It probably

Message 2 of 18
, Jun 4, 2010

0 Attachment

Hey Hank

I agree, note that where Longstreet looked not so good was at Knoxville where he was asked to do something against this line of thinking. It probably was reinforced at Chickamauga, since just about the best that could be hoped for offensively accomplished little from a total Campaign view, yet cost plenty of blood.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:
>
> Actually Old Pete's actions were probably better aligned with Southern aspirations than other, more exalted, Confederate leaders.
>
> The doctrine of strategic defense espoused by Longstreet and Johnston would have saved both territory and lives...
>
>
> HankC
>
>
> --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Hattie" <ggeisler@> wrote:
> >
> > The more that I study and read of this conflict, the less that General Longstreet impresses me seems like a lot os what he did was not beneficial to the cause of the South. Am I alone in this? comment please thanks and God Bless
> > Gary
> >
>

rbaquero@netzero.net

Hi ! Do you know if ...... President Jefferson Davis had something to do with Longstreet and Johnston ? - Raul ... From: carlw4514 To:

Message 3 of 18
, Jun 6, 2010

0 Attachment

Hi ! Do you know if ...... President Jefferson Davis had something to do with Longstreet and Johnston ?

I agree, note that where Longstreet looked not so good was at Knoxville where he was asked to do something against this line of thinking. It probably was reinforced at Chickamauga, since just about the best that could be hoped for offensively accomplished little from a total Campaign view, yet cost plenty of blood.

--- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "hank9174" <clarkc@...> wrote:>> Actually Old Pete's actions were probably better aligned with Southern aspirations than other, more exalted, Confederate leaders. > > The doctrine of strategic defense espoused by Longstreet and Johnston would have saved both territory and lives...> > > HankC> > > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Hattie" <ggeisler@> wrote:> >> > The more that I study and read of this conflict, the less that General Longstreet impresses me seems like a lot os what he did was not beneficial to the cause of the South. Am I alone in this? comment please thanks and God Bless> > Gary> >>